I’ll make this quick. I’ve heard two or three independent sources saying that the new iMac’s screen is “better than HD.” Let’s examine that claim for a moment here. If HD is 1920×1080 and the iMac is 2560×1440, then yes, it is better than HD. But why would you make that claim when most monitors over 22 inches are at least that resolution? I’ve been using a fantastic Dell 2407WFP for five years or so, and it goes up to 1920×1200. Better than HD, before HD even came around!
That’s all. I just wanted to register a facepalm at this ridiculous talking point. I’m sure the new iMac screen is great (better than mine, to be sure), and actually it looks like a pretty good deal, but “better than HD” is just about the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard.
Update: Sorry if it wasn’t clear; by “at least that resolution,” I mean 1920×1080, i.e. HD. That’s why saying “better than HD” is meaningless, almost every monitor is better than HD. Also, I am not criticizing Apple, people. If you read the post, you will find I praised the monitor. I’m criticizing a phrase I’ve seen bandied about recently. Time to chill out.
This is one of those really brilliant talking points or marketing ideas that some useless marketing exec came up with simply because they couldn’t think of anything else to say. Its sort of like saying breathing air is better then smog. And you say that solely on the assumption that 95% of people don’t know what either air or smog means. Usless! Apple needs to fire that guy/girl!
Monica S
Los Angeles Computer Repair
http://www.sebecomputercare.com
yeah, sure… but folks don’t seem to realize that stretching “HD content”, 1280×720 (720p), over 2560×1440 is actually making it look a lot worse than it would look on a TV with the right resolution.
For whatever reason this reminds me of “This is Spinal Tap.”
Nigel Tufnel: The numbers all go to eleven. Look, right across the board, eleven, eleven, eleven and…
Marty DiBergi: Oh, I see. And most amps go up to ten?
Nigel Tufnel: Exactly.
Marty DiBergi: Does that mean it’s louder? Is it any louder?
Nigel Tufnel: Well, it’s one louder, isn’t it? It’s not ten. You see, most blokes, you know, will be playing at ten. You’re on ten here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you’re on ten on your guitar. Where can you go from there? Where?
Marty DiBergi: I don’t know.
Nigel Tufnel: Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?
Marty DiBergi: Put it up to eleven.
Nigel Tufnel: Eleven. Exactly. One louder.
Marty DiBergi: Why don’t you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?
Nigel Tufnel: [pause] These go to eleven.
Perfect example! Seems like selling consumer electronics has just become a numbers game. Who ever has the bigger number wins, no matter what the number means. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for more pixels. At least more pixels exhibits an appreciable result, unlike the refresh rate and contrast ratio nonsense. But “better than HD” is a stupid ploy to sell monitors to stupid people. Most people impressed by that statement won’t realize that all those pixels don’t mean squat if you’re using an underpowered GPU (a standard feature of every Mac I’ve ever encountered.)
Again, Apple isn’t saying this.
Facepalm.
+1
Are you guys kidding? Typical Crunchgear anti-Apple drivel. I am amazed how you didn’t take issue with Microsofts “Best Windows Ever”
But then their name is not Apple
What is it you think they are kidding about? Seems like a pretty factual post to me.
Crunchgear has no credibility with their constant ridiculous anti-apple articles What a joke this site has become.
@monica se,
Apple?
According to this well informed article, it’s 2 or 3 independent sources.
Who should Apple fire again?
facepalm.
From Apple’s site:
“More pixels. Better picture.
The new iMac offers some prime pixel real estate. The 21.5-inch, 1920-by-1080 display has 17 percent more pixels than the previous 20-inch iMac. The 27-inch, 2560-by-1440 display has a whopping 78 percent more pixels than the 21.5-inch iMac. And a 1000:1 contrast ratio gives you more vibrant colors and blacker blacks. All that in a widescreen display with a 16:9 aspect ratio — the same as an HD TV.”
Most monitors over 22 inches are not at least 2560×1440. Most 24″ monitors are 1920×1080; your older one is more square so y=1280.
Even most 26 or 27 inch monitors are 1920 by 1080 or 1200 (going by Dell’s web site).
So 2560×1440 at 27″ is better than most, and it’s “better than HD”, a phrase the man on the street understands.
Even Apple critics admit that Apple knows its marketing, so if its (factual) advertising is the most ridiculous thing you’ve ever heard, you’d be wise to stay out of marketing.
@samuel,
Again, this is not Apple saying this, this is the blogger Devin writing that two or three independent sources saying that the new iMac’s screen is “better than HD.”
I know Apple is the root of all evil to some, but don’t assign something to them that THEY DID NOT SAY!
Sure it’s marketing speak, but also remember it’s an IPS panel too – not just a cheap TN panel …
ie. you get a state of the art monitor with a computer stuck to the back of it.
Aww come on this is a ridiculous anti Apple post.
For one Apple didn’t state that anywhere and two HD is 1080P or 1920×1080.
Going from 1920×1080 to 2560×1440 is 3.6 megapixels or nearly double the HD resolution so it’s a LOT better than HD.
Not to mention it squeezes all those pixels onto a 27 inch screen giving it a nice pixel density in the process too oh and as mentioned above.
It’s a pretty nice monitor actually. Shame about the computer specs they wouldn’t get close to taking advantage of what you should be doing with a monitor like that.
Show me the list of 2560×1440 27″ monitors that are on the market today much less that have been on the market forever!
Ya fuckwad there are none less than 30″ so cram that one up your ass along with your head!
Wow it has to be a sad position to be in being a Windows zealot. Life just gets more fucked up every day still defending an obsolete operating system kludged together by a bunch of hacks to run malware and viruses oh ya and a few games for the truly retarded.
Okay I’ll bite. Apple delivers a 27″ professional monitor at consumer prices and people dis them. If you think the Dell pos is the same you are clueless. Go study up. The Apple 27″ is unmatched currently in the market and they delivered it because they prepaid LG a 1/2 Billion to get the product that would wow. Go see it for yourself. Don’t get tied in a knot about what is or is not HD, the monitor is sweet and too call it anything else is BS
HP has a 30″ at 2560×1600, for ~$1100, so I wouldn’t call it unmatched – but I never said what what you think I say in the post.
I have to post a technical comment for our author who seems to be the display authority. Your Dell display is TFT while the the Apple display is LTPS. Your discerning eyes may miss the difference so I will provide a brief technical description
The larger and more uniform grains of polysilicon (poly-Si) allow electrons to flow 100 times faster than they do through the random-sized grains of amorphous silicon (a-Si), enabling higher resolutions and higher speed.
“Built-in 21.5-inch (viewable) or 27-inch (viewable) LED-backlit glossy widescreen TFT active-matrix liquid crystal display with IPS technology.”
Sounds like a little of both.
Don’t forget the obvious. MOST monitors are still less than 1920 x 1080; most monitors are still less than 22″!
Are all apple fanbois and fangirls this f-ing stupid? Really should the f-ing i-Pod silhouette ads have the person in a wheelchair with a bicycle helmet on?
Devin did not say anything about Apple. He did not review the 27in display. He said that outside sources are making dumb ass claims that Apple doesn’t support and that mentally crippled apple fans would believe them. While no there may not be another screen with 2560×1440, this point has nothing to do with the article.
His point isn’t with Apple, but third parties making claims that gullible morons will willingly believe. Apparently this fear is well founded, thank you for proving his point.
The point is he is WRONG.
HD = High Definition. High Definition is about having a HIGHER RESOLUTION.
Now if you have a HIGHER RESOLUTION than HD then have a resolution “Better than HD”… not rocket science is it moron?
People like you show abortion and murder of pregnant women shouldn’t be a crime.
sb, first, I’m sorry your mother drank while she carried you.
Second will some window licker please find where Devin said this new display did not have a resolution higher than 1080HD.
Third Name 5 programs that can actually render in 1440, I’ll wait.
Fourth Ever wonder why TVs less than 32″ are all 720? I’ll give you a hint it’s not price, Best Buy has 1080s at 32 inches available, they just look like a 32″ tv. So obviously this is not for dynamic media. 3d rendering? possibly but now we’re discusing the aesthetic gain of having a 25 mil pixel vs a 19mil pixel Probably makes a difference for a window licker like you SB.
Finally Apple did not make this claim, like Devin said in his post. Did you stop to think about why? Probably not.
Again I’m sorry your mother snorted coke while she was carrying you.
Roach youre just making yourself look like a moron again.
1: HD refers to the resolution. In order for something to be better than HD it has to have a high resolution.
2: LOL what do you mean name 5 programs that render in HD are you a complete moron?
You can’t get movies in 1440P resolution but you can use it anywhere else.
You can set games to appear in that resolution, you can use photoshop and show more on the screen, you can do video editing with two 720P streams on the screen at the same time, you can open more windows on the screen at the same time when surfing the net.
I mean there are so many applications for a higher resolution screen the pixel density allows you to pack in a lot more onto the screen whether your video editing or surfing the web. Higher resolution is simply better for most advanced applications as it allows you to fit more onto the screen.
3: OK this is why I am calling you out as a dumabss. You really are a moron.
The diffrence between a TV and a monitor is TV’s are about giving you a bigger viewing platform while monitors are designed to have a higher pixel density to make it easier to make out smaller details.
Thats why you can’t surf the internet on a TV ten feet away from you. The pixels are too far apart but for looking at a picture it is fine as you don’t need to stare at tiny details on the screen getting eye strain.
Monitors on the other hand are about packing in as many pixels as possible. The best monitors on the market right now are these CRT’s with a resolution of 3840×2400 and they are only 22″.
Better pixel density just means more accurate image production and then you add to that a nice panel with IPS and your talking about something that obliterates a larger 1080P screen for everything apart from viewing 1080P content.
I know Apple didn’t make the claim but it’s a useless comment to make either way. It is better than HD because HD refers to solely the resolution of 1920×1080 and if the resolution is markedly higher than 1920×1080 then it is “better than HD”.